> The idea that voters are always right would also seem to eliminate the possibility of arguing for change. Voters are responsible for current policy therefore it must be right, so how could change be good?

I'd argue the exact opposite. If voters are wrong, and cause bad outcomes, why would you blame "the government", when it's clearly voters being stupid? And I'm not arguing for "no change"-- the fix is to vote better next time. I think it is only fair to directly blame "the government" in a democracy if it either acts against its voters, or is otherwise incompetent, hypocritical or corrupt.

I'd argue that the largest "problems" government causes with housing are institutionalized NIMBYism and more generally policies to prop up housing values.

This happens (mostly) because (many) voters want it.

To fix this, we need more votes from people that suffer most (i.e. young voters, which notoriously don't) and more awareness/priority/empathy from all voters (ideally even the ones not directly affected).

I strongly dislike blanket blaming "the government" for issues like this, because I feel it kinda disenfranchises people.

I'd argue that any policy problem that wouldn't be solved via re-election is never really a "government problem", it's a "people problem" (voters being stupid) or an "incentives" problem ("vote cost" being compensated indirectly by political donations, media attention or similar).